MPs fight to block expenses revelations

The House of Commons today asked the high court to block an "unlawfully intrusive" decision to force the publication of a detailed breakdown of MPs' expenses.

The unprecedented legal challenge is against the Information Tribunal's ruling that a detailed breakdown of MPs' additional costs allowances (ACAs) must be provided under the Freedom of Information Act.

The decision was a "substantial intrusion" into the lives of MPs and their families, and created a potential security risk, the judges were told.

Today's high court challenge was instigated by a Commons committee chaired by the Speaker, Michael Martin.

It came in response to an Information Tribunal order that, under the Freedom of Information Act, the Commons had a duty to publish the details of how 14 prominent MPs and former MPs, including party leaders Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg, have spent their £23,000-a-year ACAs – used to help fund a second home.

Complying with the order will mean revealing the MPs' addresses and publishing individual receipts for money claimed.

The Speaker's attempts to block the publication prompted complaints from across the Commons that parliament was giving the appearance it had something to hide.

The House of Commons Commission, chaired by the Speaker, had appeared to give up the battle after lawyers advised that a challenge would fail. But Martin decided to mount a legal challenge after receiving fresh advice that it could succeed.

If the appeal fails, it could lead to all 646 MPs having to reveal exactly how they spent their allowances.

Today Nigel Giffin QC, for the Commons, told the high court that the tribunal's decision meant that there would be "a substantial intrusion" into the lives of MPs and their families.

He argued that the tribunal had taken a legally flawed approach by not giving weight to the "legitimate expectation" of MPs that no detailed breakdown of their expenses, or their home addresses, would be made public.

In December 2002, the Speaker told MPs that he had received legal advice that the Commons should publish "the total sum" for each allowance.

The Speaker said that would be enough to meet Freedom of Information Act obligations and provide "transparency and accountability whilst respecting the reasonable personal privacy of members and their staff".

The house authorities intend to start publishing all expenses - but in less detail - by the end of this year.

The decision to challenge the tribunal angered many MPs and freedom-of-information campaigners, not least because of its cost, which is expected to top £100,000.

James Goudie QC, for the information commissioner, told the court that legislation would be seriously undermined if promises made by the Speaker could cut down on the right of applicants to get information.

"It is perhaps unfortunate that these grounds have been advanced at all, particularly from the source from which they have been advanced," he said.

The hearing before Sir Igor Judge, the president of the Queen's Bench family division, Lord Justice Latham and Mr Justice Blake is expected to last for at least a day, and judgment will be reserved to a later date.